Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rush Limbaugh: Making sense or making an ass of himself?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Wayfarer View Post
    What is "crude" about biological determinism?

    As I clearly mentioned in no way shape or form was I condoning discrimination against a sex or gender via the political or legal process. I am all for equality, not for a situation where some (be it, ethnic minorities or gender) are more equal than others. I don't like to pick and choose equality based on personal bias or preference, as the societies you previously mention advocate. Arguably, the integration of women into the workforce has been the driving catalyst behind economic growth in the last 50 or so years.

    Its hilarious trying to paint me into a corner as a conservative Christian fundamentalist bogeyman, when I happen to be neither Christian nor religiously motivated in any way shape or form.

    What is your opposition to equality, warts and all?

    If you deny the allegations of sexual discrimination against males prevalent in the legal system today, you are as blind as the bigots like Rush you love to name and shame. It seems you dislike your own gender(assumption) as much as feminists do. I'm sorry, but males deserve equal rights as well.
    Kid, stuff like this is just embarrassing. You are so busy telling me what I am saying and rushing to make all the points you think 'prove' an argument I'm not even having, that you haven't bothered to properly read what either of us wrote. Your mouth is writing cheques your intellect can't cash. You can't even keep your arguments straight over the course of a single post. Some of the arguments you are making are, quite honestly, cringeworthy. I feel bad reading it. The only possible reason I could have for debating you is the perverse pleasure I might get from helping you to make a fool of yourself. Fortunately for you I'm not that perverse.

    By not debating you I'm actually doing you a favour. Do yourself one & quit while you are behind.

    If this is the best you can do there are plenty of websites full of like-minded dittoheads who will give you 'likes' and tell you how right you are.

    I've said this before (and you ignored me then) and I'll say it again now. Post less, read more, read diversely, stop reading wildly prejudiced crap. it will help you look less silly when you actually have to debate people who don't already agree with you.

    Oh, and stop playing the victim, it was old last year. I'm not looking down on you because you are conservative, I'm looking down on you because....well....read what I just wrote.
    sigpic

    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Chunder View Post
      I aint getting anything, therefore this discriminates against those that don't get to use the service, because their sexual prowess sucks... :p
      Well you can always claim viagra. ;)
      sigpic

      Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

      Comment


      • #63
        Viagra will only help cover one portion of the equation. Besides, he never said his soldier has a problem standing at attention. For all we know, his soldier is locked, cocked and ready to rock, but there's no place for him to charge to...
        Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

        Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

        Comment


        • #64
          Some airhead idiot makes some stupid remarks somewhere, which are picked up and blown out of proportion by Mr Limbaugh who needs a new controversy for his show.

          All this is just a distraction, because that airhead will never get what she wants and there are more impotant things going on than this non-issue.

          There are more important things to worry about.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
            Kid, stuff like this is just embarrassing. You are so busy telling me what I am saying and rushing to make all the points you think 'prove' an argument I'm not even having,
            Oh you seemed so keen to rush to the defense of the damsel in distress here.

            that you haven't bothered to properly read what either of us wrote. Your mouth is writing cheques your intellect can't cash.
            How very tolerant of you. Attacking the messenger again. If you don't want to reply, simple, don't reply, I don't need your wound up excuses to soothe your ego that prevents you from engaging in debate with another person, if you post on here, prepare to have it responded to. I don't know why you join a forum if you want to pick and choose who to argue with.

            You can't even keep your arguments straight over the course of a single post. Some of the arguments you are making are, quite honestly, cringeworthy. I feel bad reading it. The only possible reason I could have for debating you is the perverse pleasure I might get from helping you to make a fool of yourself. Fortunately for you I'm not that perverse.
            Please, don't flatter yourself. I really don't care if you are "cringing", I think our mutual opinions of each other are quite low, whilst that may be the case, it is no reason not to be civil about debate. Seems like it is impossible to engage you in discussion without you launching verbal barbs at your opponents. I'm no psychologist here, but you seem to be projecting anger and frustration and venting it on a nice convenient target.

            Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
            Sorry, 'womanizer' carries the same abusive overtones of 'slut' or 'whore'. Not even close.
            Explanation given, which you dislike with, so throw a hissy-fit? Respond cogently if you want to show your intellectual superiority.

            There is only one label there & it applies to a man who resuses to contribute to the upbringing of a child. Not even close. Again, how do these come even close to the sort of abusive terms used to describe women who dare to have sex outside marriage or with more than one partner? Show me the term for a promiscuous (or even sexually active) man that carried the negative connotations of 'slut' or 'whore'. You can't. Interestingly, some of the nastiest insults men use against each other are ones that question their masculinity, not ones that demonize it.
            You clearly pointed out, to use your own words, societal "Double standards" against women. You wanted an "equally" damning choice of adjective or noun to describe male sexual promiscuity, and in the lack of one, you cry havok, oh mighty injustice.I then went on to give an explanation for it, which you find disagreeable. Acceptable to me, but none here have seen why you find these explanations so "irrational". Maybe as you claim, I am the sub-80 I.Q person in the room in comparision with the rest of this forum, yes, I have a long way to go, but the only way I will learn is by making mistakes and being convinced by more rational thought and explanation.







            I also pointed out double-standards that exist in relation to males, and not social norms, but legal discrimination that exists within the framework of this Government. Replace man with (x,y,z) ethnic minority and women and the entire left would be up in arms were the situation similar. The point made in relation to male discrimination was equally relevant in the context of this thread, which sees fit to provide only one gender with contraceptives. I also posed you the question whether or not you find this kind of discrimination equally repulsive

            This isn't about 'PC'. Terms like 'slut' and 'whore' are extremely vicious. They are about demonizing & penalizing women. There are no male equivalents to the way those terms are used. Why? because we don't place the same judgements on men for having sex. Civilized human beings (male or female) should never use such terms in the context Limbaugh used them. This isn't about Rush being 'un-PC', it is about him being uncivilized & mysoginist. Not quite the same thing.
            If you finds words demonize and penalize women, surely it shouldn't be hard to agree that the system currently "demonizes and penalizes" males.

            Also, hilarious how you call Rush uncivilized, and later on, come in to post a delicious tirade about a intellectually lacking poster without addressing any points made. Were it ANY other member of this forum, they would have a)looked for fault within my statements, b) replied pointing out the errors in my thinking.

            With you it is different, it seems to get a response from you, I have to take the circuitous rout of navigating a sea of opinions towards myself, which I frankly, find boring and repetitive.


            By not debating you I'm actually doing you a favour. Do yourself one & quit while you are behind.
            Oh my, quite the ego here. Don't worry, I hold no notion of indebtness to you.

            f this is the best you can do there are plenty of websites full of like-minded dittoheads who will give you 'likes' and tell you how right you are.
            Yawn. Bigfella mate, try a different tactic. The ad-hominems may have got me riled up in the past, but really get tiresome after a while.

            Interesting facts about me: Not a atypical white Caucasian Australian with a Southern Cross tattoo on his bac and Geelong club membership who loves the Herald Sun and his daily dose of A Current Affair.

            First generation migrant
            Self Employed
            Ethnic minority



            I've said this before (and you ignored me then) and I'll say it again now. Post less, read more, read diversely, stop reading wildly prejudiced crap. it will help you look less silly when you actually have to debate people who don't already agree with you.
            Post less, read more Chomsky and liberal pseudo-intellectuals, and stop voicing conservative opinion. I don't know about you, but people who constantly fling mud at others don't have their opinion respected. You find fault with my opinion, fine, correct it. If you find fault, throw a tantrum and cry about my low-intelligence bringing down the average level of intelligence on the forum, and AT LEAST give explanation.

            Oh, and stop playing the victim, it was old last year. I'm not looking down on you because you are conservative, I'm looking down on you because....well....read what I just wrote.
            All I see is not-so thinly veiled ad-hominems, give it a break mate, try a different tact. You clearly have had enough time to post 5000+ posts on this forum, and more than enough time to address my points made instead of throwing a hissy fit. Yet, you do so again (second time I've had to extract an argument from you actually)

            Stop being so pedantic.
            "Who says organization, says oligarchy"

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by antimony View Post
              It treat various endocrinal and other disorders specific to women apart from preventing them from making babies. The only thing a blue Viagra pill treats is a dude's inability to keep it up long enough.
              Why should it be covered for women who do not have a disorder that needs treatment?

              Indeed, and yet you don't object to pay for the "medial condition" whose only goal is to treat a floppy.

              Right, no hypocrisy or weasel words here
              That's correct, on both counts. As I said repeatedly, and you keep ignoring, is I that don't have a problem with either being covered as long as it's prescribed for a medical condition. I'll ask again, Why should it be covered for women who do not have a disorder that needs treatment?

              I do not read specifically your name being called out in the transcript.
              Since you'd rather play word games than debate, I'll just ask the same question again...Why should it be covered for women who do not have a disorder that needs treatment?

              About the disease, she is saying that insurance companies should cover it and should pay for it based on prescriptions. Just like they would for heart, liver or lung or penile problems.
              And I disagreed with this view where exactly? Do you read what your responding to or just make it up and answer yourself? I'll ask again...Why should it be covered for women who do not have a disorder that needs treatment?

              In your worldview, apparently the insurance companies should cover a man's willie getting fixed but not a woman's endocrinal disorders.
              Since you seem to want to ignore the actual words I'm posting, let me quote myself...

              Originally posted by wooglin
              That being said, if a certain contraceptive is prescribed by a doctor for a medical condition then I could see why it should be covered.
              Now, instead of reframing my position, would you like to debate the actual issue I raised? Specifically.... Why should it be covered for women who do not have a disorder that needs treatment?

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Wayfarer View Post
                JURY BIAS: Women are acquitted of spousal murder at a rate 9 times that of men [Bureau Justice Statistics -- 1.4% of men vs 12.9% of women]
                They hide evidence better or they are doing it more often in a self defense?

                COURT BIAS: Men are sentenced 2.8 times longer than women for spousal murder [Bureau Justice Statistics -- men at 17 years vs women at 6 years]
                The men are doing it in more heinous manner?

                JUSTICE SYSTEM BIAS: Even though the amount of the average "child support payment" due from women is half the amount due from men, and even though women are twice as likely as men to default on those payments, fathers are 97% of "child support" collections prosecutions [Census Bureau]
                While they are 92% of the payers. Not much distraction.

                CHILD VIOLENCE: Even though mothers commit 55% of child murders and biological fathers commit 6%, even though NIS-3 shows that Mother-only households are 3 times more fatal to children than Father-only households, children are systematically removed from the natural fathers who are their most effective protectors and men are imprisoned at rate 20 times that of women.
                Is there any analysis for this? One that I can think of is that men are paid more for the same job, therefor they can pay baby sitters and live under much less stress.

                CHILD CUSTODY: Women receive custody of 92% of the children of divorce and illegitimacy, and men only 4%. [Department of Health & Human Services]
                Why is that? The judges are at least 50-50%

                OBAMACARE: ABSENCE OF OFFICE OF MEN'S HEALTH: men die at least 5 years earlier, are diagnosed with cancer 1 in 2, no mention of prostate cancer in Obamacare, men lead in 9 out of 10 top causes of death, so it's shocking that there is not an Office of Men's Health vs the 7 new agencies and departments devoted solely to women. [Yahoo, "Does Obamacare discriminate against men?", 17 Dec 10. ]
                Men die younger as they can't listen to their women anymore - they had enough. Find me a divorced men dying younger then their divorced wifes

                Paternity fraud is the false identification of a man as a child’s biological father. The American Association of Blood Banks reports that, out of 300,000 DNA paternity tests performed annually, 30% exclude the man as the biological dad. Even if DNA excludes them, they can still be forced to pay support, despite having families of their own to feed.
                Huh? How can someone force you to pay something you have no obligations to.

                Lets not get started on Affirmative action shall we?
                Please don't.

                In the U.K

                The retiring pension ages for men and women are unequal i.e. women retire at 60 and men have to retire at 65. This will not be corrected until the year 2020. Since women live (on average) 7 years longer than men it can be said that men receive 12 years less benefits for 5 years more work.
                Unless something changed last few years, the men working the same job will earn more in their life time (7 years less).

                Widows are able to claim bereavement benefit, but there is no equivalent benefit for widowers.
                Don't now about UK, but over here the same applies for a widow and a widower.

                Also, the cultural vogue, where men are typically portrayed as bumbling oafs, idiotic, and good-for-nothings (Family Guy, Simpsons), women portrayed as level-headed, and the ones on which familial stability rests.Were the same to be repeated with a female in the role of Peter Griffin or Homer, I have no doubt feminist groups would decry and sue the living sh!# out of the producers. Television ads that discriminate against women, or portray them in a negative/backward fashion receive immense backlash, but does the same exist for those which negatively portray males?
                Men just don't care, they have the remote and will change the channel. Afterwards, the ratings will drop and that show will be gone. Besides all men I know love Al bundy.
                No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                  Kid, stuff like this is just embarrassing. You are so busy telling me what I am saying and rushing to make all the points you think 'prove' an argument I'm not even having, that you haven't bothered to properly read what either of us wrote. Your mouth is writing cheques your intellect can't cash. You can't even keep your arguments straight over the course of a single post. Some of the arguments you are making are, quite honestly, cringeworthy. I feel bad reading it. The only possible reason I could have for debating you is the perverse pleasure I might get from helping you to make a fool of yourself. Fortunately for you I'm not that perverse.

                  By not debating you I'm actually doing you a favour. Do yourself one & quit while you are behind.

                  If this is the best you can do there are plenty of websites full of like-minded dittoheads who will give you 'likes' and tell you how right you are.

                  I've said this before (and you ignored me then) and I'll say it again now. Post less, read more, read diversely, stop reading wildly prejudiced crap. it will help you look less silly when you actually have to debate people who don't already agree with you.

                  Oh, and stop playing the victim, it was old last year. I'm not looking down on you because you are conservative, I'm looking down on you because....well....read what I just wrote.
                  Oh get the fvck over yourself. If you can't handle the heat, get out. Otherwise shut the hell up.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Wooglin View Post
                    Why should it be covered for women who do not have a disorder that needs treatment?
                    Why is this not obvious - to prevent unwanted pregnancies and to maintain sexual and reproductive health in women. I would rather pay a small amount for this rather than the cost of carrying through or aborting an unwanted pregnancy.

                    The reason I think this is necessary is because of the cost. From what I read it is not clear that women's BC is a cheap option, unlike condoms which are very cheap.
                    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Wayfarer View Post
                      I'm speaking of discrimination inherent within the the framework of Western Governments.


                      JURY BIAS: Women are acquitted of spousal murder at a rate 9 times that of men [Bureau Justice Statistics -- 1.4% of men vs 12.9% of women]

                      COURT BIAS: Men are sentenced 2.8 times longer than women for spousal murder [Bureau Justice Statistics -- men at 17 years vs women at 6 years]

                      JUSTICE SYSTEM BIAS: Even though the amount of the average "child support payment" due from women is half the amount due from men, and even though women are twice as likely as men to default on those payments, fathers are 97% of "child support" collections prosecutions [Census Bureau]

                      CHILD VIOLENCE: Even though mothers commit 55% of child murders and biological fathers commit 6%, even though NIS-3 shows that Mother-only households are 3 times more fatal to children than Father-only households, children are systematically removed from the natural fathers who are their most effective protectors and men are imprisoned at rate 20 times that of women.

                      CHILD CUSTODY: Women receive custody of 92% of the children of divorce and illegitimacy, and men only 4%. [Department of Health & Human Services]

                      OBAMACARE: ABSENCE OF OFFICE OF MEN'S HEALTH: men die at least 5 years earlier, are diagnosed with cancer 1 in 2, no mention of prostate cancer in Obamacare, men lead in 9 out of 10 top causes of death, so it's shocking that there is not an Office of Men's Health vs the 7 new agencies and departments devoted solely to women. [Yahoo, "Does Obamacare discriminate against men?", 17 Dec 10. ]

                      Paternity fraud is the false identification of a man as a child’s biological father. The American Association of Blood Banks reports that, out of 300,000 DNA paternity tests performed annually, 30% exclude the man as the biological dad. Even if DNA excludes them, they can still be forced to pay support, despite having families of their own to feed.

                      Lets not get started on Affirmative action shall we?

                      In the U.K

                      The retiring pension ages for men and women are unequal i.e. women retire at 60 and men have to retire at 65. This will not be corrected until the year 2020. Since women live (on average) 7 years longer than men it can be said that men receive 12 years less benefits for 5 years more work.
                      Widows are able to claim bereavement benefit, but there is no equivalent benefit for widowers.

                      Also, the cultural vogue, where men are typically portrayed as bumbling oafs, idiotic, and good-for-nothings (Family Guy, Simpsons), women portrayed as level-headed, and the ones on which familial stability rests.Were the same to be repeated with a female in the role of Peter Griffin or Homer, I have no doubt feminist groups would decry and sue the living sh!# out of the producers. Television ads that discriminate against women, or portray them in a negative/backward fashion receive immense backlash, but does the same exist for those which negatively portray males?
                      All taken verbatim from some of the MRA sites that exist out there:

                      Twenty One Indicators of Systemic Discrimination Against Men
                      12 indisputable indicators that Men are Second Class citizens in the USA

                      All with generic references to groups and govt. depts but without citing specific reports

                      All refuted again by feminist websites like the following, again with some refrences

                      Some masculinist rubbish… | The Prime Directive

                      Enough of "he said, she said" here to make me feel sick
                      "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Wayfarer View Post
                        Interesting facts about me: Not a atypical white Caucasian Australian with a Southern Cross tattoo on his bac and Geelong club membership who loves the Herald Sun and his daily dose of A Current Affair.

                        First generation migrant
                        Self Employed
                        Ethnic minority
                        If I need to take a guess, I would characterize you as BJP rather than National Party
                        "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by antimony View Post
                          Why is this not obvious - to prevent unwanted pregnancies
                          There's a free method and non-intrusive method already available for this. She could keep her legs closed.

                          -dale

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by dalem View Post
                            There's a free method and non-intrusive method already available for this. She could keep her legs closed.

                            -dale
                            Are you on some kind of mission to see how many asinine comments you can rack up each week?
                            "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              I think he does that just in general, but he does have a point...
                              Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

                              Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                                So when is congress going to legislate that Vegan restaurants must provide animal protein? Nutritionally it's clearly a public good.
                                As with all things here. All it takes is someone to raise a big enough stink to get the ball rolling.
                                Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X